View the H-War Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-War's January 2010 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in H-War's January 2010 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the H-War home page.
1. Tamir Libel <email@example.com> 2. "Kuehn, John Dr CIV USA TRADOC" <firstname.lastname@example.org> 3. "McGrath, John J CIV USA TRADOC" <email@example.com> -----Message from: Tamir Libel <firstname.lastname@example.org>----- I would like to add to Mr. Grant illuminating contribution that the Marine Corps has went in the last 20 years through an impressive reorganization of their PME system. Beginning with the establishment at 1991 of the Marine Corps University (MCU) they created both War College and an advanced warfighting institution- School of Advanced Warfighting (SAW). Currently, their PME system is parallel to the ones of the Army and Air Force. Dr. Tamir Libel Tamir Libel <email@example.com> -----Message from: "Kuehn, John Dr CIV USA TRADOC" <firstname.lastname@example.org>----- Tamir is correct on many counts. The US Navy's focus on advanced operational war fighting and attendant education is different than the other services, especially the notion of operational art--which seems to have more traction with the land service components and the Air Force. The Navy's program, NOPC (Naval Operational Planner Course) is basically the junior command and staff course plus an additional term of focused studies and is miniscule in terms of the numbers of students at SAAS (AF), AMSP/SAMS (Army) and SAWS (USMC). One has to remember, too, that Navy officers do attend the these other service courses, getting not only whatever degrees come as a result, but also the Navy additional qualifier designator (AQD) of Joint Planner (JP1). The Naval War College does have a senior and junior fellows program for focused studies in the CNO Strategic Studies Group (SSG) that does touch on operational level issues as well as strategy. The numbers for the SSG run into a couple dozen and include other services and interagency. I have been heavily involved in lobbying the Navy to take PME, especially the other service school PME programs, more seriously. I had a dog in the hunt, since as the deputy director here at CGSC for Navy Element (2000-2004) the quality of the students was a bit of a point of honor. For my written thoughts, back issues of Proceedings have both editorials and letters that I have published on the topic. See especially, "Let's Send Our Best to Leavenworth," USNI Proceedings, March 2006, 77. (Not available online anymore) I got some nasty emails and letters on that one, but I also got kudos from the CEO of USNI and a couple under-the-table-attaboys from some senior active duty officers. I later learned (from a CNO's aide) that this particular editorial did have an impact on the assignment of Navy officers to CGSC (e.g. no longer sending O-4's approved for retirement). However, operational assignments drive Navy detailers (assignment officers) and vigilance, over Navy detailing to education that is, must be maintained. The late Dr. Phil Brookes, who was the director of graduate degree programs at CGSC used to muse about the Navy, why it seemed to disesteem graduate education and PME, while on the other hand it had such fine educational institutions and faculties at Newport and Monterey. I had no good answer for him other than a reference to Williamson Murray's classic essay "Clausewitz Out, Computer In: Military Culture and Technological Hubris." Another response I gave him was something on the order of, "that perhaps the Navy is not to be outdone by another service, even in an area it deems a lower priority." In other words, the value of professional military education seems to be related to operational tempos and trends and their perceived importance versus the time spent in an academic setting. With a smaller and smaller number of ships and sea billets, some of these imperatives that negatively impact career officer graduate education may be eroding. I wonder what Nimitz would say?(see quotation below) Vr, John John T. Kuehn, Ph.D. CDR USN (retired) Associate Professor of Military History AMSP '98 Department of Military History U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Fort Leavenworth, KS "Kuehn, John Dr CIV USA TRADOC" <email@example.com> -----Message from: "McGrath, John J CIV USA TRADOC" <firstname.lastname@example.org>----- For a while recently, the Army had a branch immaterial course for all new officers before they went to their branch specific courses. This has recently been abandoned. The complaints about duplication of ROTC may have been based on this course. This was surely not my experience as a US Army officer. Both ROTC and the basic branch course (in my case field artillery) offered glimpses of tactical operations and scenarios, but once in a real unit, the routine of garrison life with first sergeants and motor pools, SDO, supply rooms and HHCs was all new. The Army has long had a detailed system of officer's training but I was surprised when I first came to Leavenworth that only a small number of combat arms officers attended the courses here while I saw more than a few doctors, AGs and lawyers as students. Since then, however, the Army has modified this system and, I believe, all line officers attend resident courses. (In my day I took the course by correspondence). John McGrath "McGrath, John J CIV USA TRADOC" <email@example.com> ----- For subscription help, go to: http://www.h-net.org/lists/help/ To change your subscription settings, go to http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=h-war -----